[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 194 (Tuesday, October 9, 2007)]
[Notices]
[Pages 57352-57358]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-19553]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
Biweekly Notice; Applications and Amendments to Facility
Operating Licenses Involving No Significant Hazards Considerations
I. Background
Pursuant to section 189a.(2) of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as
amended (the Act), the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (the
Commission or NRC staff) is publishing this regular biweekly notice.
The Act requires the Commission publish notice of any amendments
issued, or proposed to be issued and grants the Commission the
authority to issue and make immediately effective any amendment to an
operating license upon a determination by the Commission that such
amendment involves no significant hazards consideration,
notwithstanding the pendency before the Commission of a request for a
hearing from any person.
This biweekly notice includes all notices of amendments issued, or
proposed to be issued from September 13, 2007 to September 26, 2007.
The last biweekly notice was published on September 25, 2007 (72 FR
54771).
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating
Licenses, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration Determination,
and Opportunity for a Hearing
The Commission has made a proposed determination that the following
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration. Under
the Commission's regulations in 10 CFR 50.92, this means that operation
of the facility in accordance with the proposed amendment would not (1)
Involve a significant increase in the probability or consequences of an
accident previously evaluated; or (2) create the possibility of a new
or different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated;
or (3) involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety. The basis
for this proposed determination for each amendment request is shown
below.
The Commission is seeking public comments on this proposed
determination. Any comments received within 30 days after the date of
publication of this notice will be considered in making any final
determination. Within 60 days after the date of publication of this
notice, the licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to
issuance of the amendment to the subject facility operating license and
any person whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who
wishes to participate as a party in the proceeding must file a written
request for a hearing and a petition for leave to intervene.
Normally, the Commission will not issue the amendment until the
expiration of 60 days after the date of publication of this notice. The
Commission may issue the license amendment before expiration of the 60-
day period provided that its final determination is that the amendment
involves no significant hazards consideration. In addition, the
Commission may issue the amendment prior to the expiration of the 30-
day comment period should circumstances change during the 30-day
comment period such that failure to act in a timely way would result,
for example in derating or shutdown of the facility. Should the
Commission take action prior to the expiration of either the comment
period or the notice period, it will publish in the Federal Register a
notice of issuance. Should the Commission make a final No Significant
Hazards Consideration Determination, any hearing will take place after
issuance. The Commission expects that the need to take this action will
occur very infrequently.
Written comments may be submitted by mail to the Chief, Rulemaking,
Directives and Editing Branch, Division of Administrative Services,
Office of Administration, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, and should cite the publication date and
page number of this Federal Register notice. Written comments may also
be delivered to Room 6D22, Two White Flint North, 11545 Rockville Pike,
Rockville, Maryland, from 7:30 a.m. to 4:15 p.m. Federal workdays.
Copies of written comments received may be examined at the Commission's
Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint North, Public
File Area O1F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. The filing of requests for a hearing and petitions for leave
to intervene is discussed below.
Within 60 days after the date of publication of this notice, the
licensee may file a request for a hearing with respect to issuance of
the amendment to the subject facility operating license and any person
whose interest may be affected by this proceeding and who wishes to
participate as a party in the
[[Page 57353]]
proceeding must file a written request for a hearing and a petition for
leave to intervene. Requests for a hearing and a petition for leave to
intervene shall be filed in accordance with the Commission's ``Rules of
Practice for Domestic Licensing Proceedings'' in 10 CFR Part 2.
Interested persons should consult a current copy of 10 CFR 2.309, which
is available at the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North,
Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville,
Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from the
Agencywide Documents Access and Management System's (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/cfr/. If a request for a hearing
or petition for leave to intervene is filed within 60 days, the
Commission or a presiding officer designated by the Commission or by
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
Panel, will rule on the request and/or petition; and the Secretary or
the Chief Administrative Judge of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board
will issue a notice of a hearing or an appropriate order.
As required by 10 CFR 2.309, a petition for leave to intervene
shall set forth with particularity the interest of the petitioner in
the proceeding, and how that interest may be affected by the results of
the proceeding. The petition should specifically explain the reasons
why intervention should be permitted with particular reference to the
following general requirements: (1) The name, address, and telephone
number of the requestor or petitioner; (2) the nature of the
requestor's/petitioner's right under the Act to be made a party to the
proceeding; (3) the nature and extent of the requestor's/petitioner's
property, financial, or other interest in the proceeding; and (4) the
possible effect of any decision or order which may be entered in the
proceeding on the requestor's/petitioner's interest. The petition must
also set forth the specific contentions which the petitioner/requestor
seeks to have litigated at the proceeding.
Each contention must consist of a specific statement of the issue
of law or fact to be raised or controverted. In addition, the
petitioner/requestor shall provide a brief explanation of the bases for
the contention and a concise statement of the alleged facts or expert
opinion which support the contention and on which the petitioner/
requestor intends to rely in proving the contention at the hearing. The
petitioner/requestor must also provide references to those specific
sources and documents of which the petitioner is aware and on which the
petitioner/requestor intends to rely to establish those facts or expert
opinion. The petition must include sufficient information to show that
a genuine dispute exists with the applicant on a material issue of law
or fact. Contentions shall be limited to matters within the scope of
the amendment under consideration. The contention must be one which, if
proven, would entitle the petitioner/requestor to relief. A petitioner/
requestor who fails to satisfy these requirements with respect to at
least one contention will not be permitted to participate as a party.
Those permitted to intervene become parties to the proceeding,
subject to any limitations in the order granting leave to intervene,
and have the opportunity to participate fully in the conduct of the
hearing.
If a hearing is requested, and the Commission has not made a final
determination on the issue of no significant hazards consideration, the
Commission will make a final determination on the issue of no
significant hazards consideration. The final determination will serve
to decide when the hearing is held. If the final determination is that
the amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration,
the Commission may issue the amendment and make it immediately
effective, notwithstanding the request for a hearing. Any hearing held
would take place after issuance of the amendment. If the final
determination is that the amendment request involves a significant
hazards consideration, any hearing held would take place before the
issuance of any amendment.
A request for a hearing or a petition for leave to intervene must
be filed by: (1) First class mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary of the Commission, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission,
Washington, DC 20555-0001, Attention: Rulemaking and Adjudications
Staff; (2) courier, express mail, and expedited delivery services:
Office of the Secretary, Sixteenth Floor, One White Flint North, 11555
Rockville Pike, Rockville, Maryland, 20852, Attention: Rulemaking and
Adjudications Staff; (3) e-mail addressed to the Office of the
Secretary, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, [email protected];
or (4) facsimile transmission addressed to the Office of the Secretary,
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC, Attention:
Rulemakings and Adjudications Staff at (301) 415-1101, verification
number is (301) 415-1966. A copy of the request for hearing and
petition for leave to intervene should also be sent to the Office of
the General Counsel, U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, DC
20555-0001, and it is requested that copies be transmitted either by
means of facsimile transmission to (301) 415-3725 or by e-mail to
[email protected]. A copy of the request for hearing and petition
for leave to intervene should also be sent to the attorney for the
licensee.
Nontimely requests and/or petitions and contentions will not be
entertained absent a determination by the Commission or the presiding
officer of the Atomic Safety and Licensing Board that the petition,
request and/or the contentions should be granted based on a balancing
of the factors specified in 10 CFR 2.309(a)(1)(i)-(viii).
For further details with respect to this action, see the
application for amendment which is available for public inspection at
the Commission's PDR, located at One White Flint North, Public File
Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor), Rockville, Maryland.
Publicly available records will be accessible from the ADAMS Public
Electronic Reading Room on the Internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
Duke Power Company LLC, Docket Nos. 50-269, 50-270, and 50-287, Oconee
Nuclear Station, Units 1, 2, and 3, Oconee County, SC
Date of amendment request: January 31, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendments would
revise the Technical Specifications to remove requirements that are no
longer applicable due to the completion of the control room intake/
booster fan modifications.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
(1) Involve a significant increase in the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated:
The proposed change to Technical Specification 3.7.9 removes out
of date requirements associated with temporary extensions of
Required Action Completion Times that are not applicable because of
the completion of the Control Room Intake/
[[Page 57354]]
Booster Fan Modification. As such, the proposed change is
administrative. No actual plant equipment, operating practices, or
accident analyses are affected by this change. Therefore, the
proposed change does not involve a significant increase in the
probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
(2) Create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any kind of accident previously evaluated:
The proposed change to Technical Specification 3.7.9 removes out
of date requirements associated with a temporary extension of
Required Actions Completion Times that are no longer applicable
because of the completion of the Control Room Intake/Booster Fan
Modification. As such, the proposed changes are administrative. No
actual plant equipment, operating practices, or accident analyses
are affected by this change. No new accident causal mechanisms are
created as a result of this change. The proposed change does not
impact any plant systems that are accident initiators; neither does
it adversely impact any accident mitigating systems. Therefore, this
change does not create the possibility of a new or different kind of
accident from any accident previously evaluated.
(3) Involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety: The
proposed change does not adversely affect any plant safety limits,
set points, or design parameters. The change also does not adversely
affect the fuel, fuel cladding, Reactor Coolant System, or
containment integrity. The proposed change eliminates out of date
requirements and is administrative in nature. Therefore the proposed
change does not involve a reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Ms. Lisa F. Vaughn, Associate General
Counsel and Managing Attorney, Duke Energy Carolinas, LLC, 526 South
Church Street, EC07H, Charlotte, NC 28202.
NRC Branch Chief: Evangelos C. Marinos.
Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-368, Arkansas Nuclear One, Unit
No. 2, Pope County, AR
Date of amendment request: August 30, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed amendment will
revise the Limiting Condition for Operation (LCO) in Arkansas Nuclear
One, Unit 2 (ANO-2), Technical Specification 3.1.3.4, ``CEA Drop
Time,'' by revising the amount of time for an individual Control
Element Assembly (CEA) to travel from a fully withdrawn position until
it reaches the 90 percent insertion position. The current limit is <=
3.5 seconds. The proposed limit is <= 3.7 seconds. The arithmetic
average drop time or the associated delay times are not impacted by the
proposed change. This change is necessary to support the implementation
of Next Generation Fuel in the next operating cycle.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change to the CEA drop time requirements have been
evaluated for impact on the ANO-2 accident analyses. The change
involves only an acceptance criterion for equipment performance and
not physical changes. The CEA drop time acceptance criteria are used
to develop trip reactivity insertion rates which are in turn used as
inputs to the accident analyses.
Previous analyses demonstrated that the calculated trip
reactivity for a realistic distributed CEA drop pattern is the same
as the trip reactivity calculated for the nondistributed pattern.
The current evaluations reverified this approach. The only
difference is the maximum time limit for an individual CEA. Since
the trip reactivity assumed in the accident analyses is not
adversely impacted by consideration of a distributed CEA drop
pattern with a larger distribution around the same average position,
the proposed limits will not increase the probability or
consequences of an accident previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed change does not involve any new or modified
structures, systems, or components; rather, it affects only an
acceptance criterion for confirming the required performance of the
existing CEA hardware. Therefore, the proposed change would not
create the possibility of a new or different kind of accident from
any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The margins of safety related to CEA insertion are defined by
the analyzed events in the Safety Analysis Report which credit the
insertion. As demonstrated above, the proposed limits on the CEA
drop time have no adverse impact on the accident analyses.
Therefore, the margins of safety reflected in the accident analysis
conclusions are not reduced.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Entergy Gulf States, Inc., and Entergy Operations, Inc., Docket No. 50-
458, River Bend Station, Unit 1, West Feliciana Parish, LA
Date of amendment request: September 13, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The proposed change will add a
License Condition 2.C to the Facility Operating License NPF-47 that
allows River Bend Station, Unit 1, Technical Specifications (TS)
surveillance intervals to be extended on a one-time basis for the
fourteenth Fuel Cycle to account for the effects of a delayed refueling
outage. The affected surveillances involve the 18-month hydrogen mixing
system flow test and the 18-month Channel Calibration and Logic System
Functional tests for one channel of a particular reactor water level
instrument system. The reactor water level instrument channel provides
an automatic signal to the following functions: Main Steam Line
Isolation, Primary Containment and Drywell Isolation, Reactor Water
Cleanup System Isolation, Secondary Containment and Fuel Building
Isolation, and the Control Room Fresh Air System.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The requested action is a one-time extension to the performance
interval of certain TS surveillance requirements. The performance of
the surveillances, or the failure to perform the surveillances, is
not a precursor to an accident. Performing the surveillances or
failing to perform the surveillances does not affect the probability
of an accident. Therefore, the proposed delay in performance of the
surveillance requirements in this amendment request does not
increase the probability of an accident previously evaluated.
A delay in performing the surveillances does not result in a
system being unable to perform its required function. Additionally,
[[Page 57355]]
the defense in depth of the system design provides additional
confidence that the safety function is maintained. In the case of
this one-time extension request, the relatively short period of
additional time that the systems and components will be in service
before the next performance of the surveillance will not affect the
ability of those systems to operate as designed. Therefore, the
system required to mitigate accidents will remain capable of
performing their required function. No new failure modes have been
introduced because of this action and the consequences remain
consistent with previously evaluated accidents. Therefore, the
proposed delay in performance of the surveillance requirement in
this amendment request does not involve a significant increase in
the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment does not involve a physical alteration of
any system, structure, or component (SSC) or a change in the way any
SSC is operated. The surveillance intervals of the level
instrumentation are currently evaluated for 30 months which bounds
the requested interval extension. The proposed amendment does not
involve operation of any SSCs in a manner or configuration different
from those previously recognized or evaluated. No new failure
mechanisms will be introduced by the one-time surveillance
requirement deferrals being requested.
Therefore, the proposed change does not create the possibility
of a new or different kind of accident from any previously
evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
The proposed amendment is a one-time extension of the
performance interval of certain TS surveillance requirements.
Extending the surveillance requirements does not involve a
modification of any TS Limiting Conditions for Operation. Extending
the surveillance requirements do not involve a change to any limit
on accident consequences specified in the license or regulations.
Extending the surveillance requirements does not involve a change to
how accidents are mitigated or a significant increase in the
consequences of an accident. Extending the surveillance requirements
does not involve a change in a methodology used to evaluate
consequences of an accident. Extending these surveillance
requirements does not involve a change in any operating procedure or
process. The surveillance intervals of the level instrumentation are
currently evaluated for 30 months which bounds the requested
interval extension.
The components involved in this request have exhibited reliable
operation based on the results of the most recent performances of
their 18-month surveillance requirements and the associated
functional surveillances.
Based on the limited additional period of time that the systems
and components will be in service before the surveillance is next
performed, as well as the operating experience that these
surveillances are typically successful when performed, it is
reasonable to conclude that the margin of safety associated with the
surveillance requirement will not be affected by the requested
extension.
Therefore, the proposed change does not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Terence A. Burke, Associate General
Council--Nuclear Entergy Services, Inc., 1340 Echelon Parkway, Jackson,
Mississippi 39213.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Nuclear Management Company, LLC, Docket Nos. 50-282 and 50-306, Prairie
Island Nuclear Generating Plant, Units 1 and 2, Goodhue County, MN
Date of amendment request: July 19, 2007.
Description of amendment request: The changes in the proposed
amendments are consistent with Regulatory Guide 1.52, ``Design,
Inspection, and Testing Criteria for Air Filtration and Adsorption
Units of Post-Accident Engineered-Safety-Feature Atmosphere Cleanup
Systems in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Plants, Revision 3.'' The
licensee proposed the following changes to technical specifications
(TS) for the Prairie Island Nuclear Generating Plant (PINGP) Units 1
and 2:
1. TS 3.6.9, ``Shield Building Ventilation System'': Revise
Surveillance Requirement (SR) 3.6.9.1 to require testing for greater
than or equal to 15 minutes every 31 days.
2. TS 3.7.12, ``Auxiliary Building Special Ventilation System'':
Revise SR 3.7.12.1 to require testing for greater than or equal to 15
minutes every 31 days.
3. TS 3.7.13, ``Spent Fuel Pool Special Ventilation System'':
Revise SR 3.173.1 to require testing for greater than or equal to 15
minutes every 31 days.
4. TS 5.5.9, ``Ventilation Filter Testing Program'': Revise the
first paragraph of this TS to require performance of the required
program testing every 24 months.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes changes to Surveillance
Requirements for the Shield Building Ventilation System, Auxiliary
Building Special Ventilation System, and Spent Fuel Pool Special
Ventilation System which revise the required system run-time with
their filter heaters on. This license amendment request also
proposes to revise the Frequency for performance of filter tests for
these systems and the Control Room Special Ventilation System.
These systems are not accident initiators and therefore, these
changes do not involve a significant increase in the probability of
an accident. The proposed system and filter testing changes are
consistent with current regulatory guidance for these systems and
will continue to assure that these systems perform their design
function. Thus these changes do not involve a significant increase
in the consequences of an accident.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes changes to Surveillance
Requirements for the Shield Building Ventilation System, Auxiliary
Building Special Ventilation System, and Spent Fuel Pool Special
Ventilation System which revise the required system run-time with
their filter heaters on. This license amendment request also
proposes to revise the Frequency for performance of filter tests for
these systems and the Control Room Special Ventilation System.
The changes proposed for these safeguards ventilation systems do
not change any system operations or maintenance activities. Testing
requirements will be revised and will continue to demonstrate that
the Limiting Conditions for Operation are met and the system
components are functional. These changes do not create new failure
modes or mechanisms and no new accident precursors are generated.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
This license amendment request proposes changes to Surveillance
Requirements for the Shield Building Ventilation System, Auxiliary
Building Special Ventilation System, and Spent Fuel Pool Special
[[Page 57356]]
Ventilation System which revise the required system run-time with
their filter heaters on. This license amendment request also
proposes to revise the Frequency for performance of filter tests for
these systems and the Control Room Special Ventilation System.
The design basis for the safeguards ventilation systems' heaters
is to heat the incoming air which reduces the relative humidity. The
heater testing changes proposed in this license amendment request
will continue to demonstrate that the heaters are capable of heating
the air, will perform their design function and are consistent with
regulatory guidance, and thus these changes do not involve a
significant reduction in a margin of safety. Periodic testing of the
safeguards ventilation systems' filters is required to demonstrate
that the filters perform their design function. The Frequency for
performance of these filter tests proposed in this license amendment
request will continue to demonstrate that the filters perform their
intended function, is consistent with regulatory guidance and thus
does not involve a significant reduction in a margin of safety.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment requests involve no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: Jonathan Rogoff, Esquire, Vice President,
Counsel & Secretary, Nuclear Management Company, LLC, 700 First Street,
Hudson, WI 54016.
NRC Acting Branch Chief: Travis L. Tate.
Omaha Public Power District, Docket No. 50-285, Fort Calhoun Station,
Unit No. 1, Washington County, NE
Date of amendment request: September 11, 2007.
Description of amendment request: In August 2006, OPPD submitted a
license amendment request to replace trisodium phosphate with sodium
tetraborate (NaTB) for one cycle. By letter dated November 13, 2006,
the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission staff approved this request. The
proposed amendment will revise Technical Specifications (TS) 2.3(4),
``Containment Sump Buffering Agent Specification and Volume
Requirement,'' and TS 3.6, ``Surveillance Requirements,'' to allow the
permanent use of NaTB as the containment sump buffering agent.
Basis for proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination: As required by 10 CFR 50.91(a), the licensee has
provided its analysis of the issue of no significant hazards
consideration, which is presented below:
1. Does the proposed change involve a significant increase in
the probability or consequences of an accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
There are no changes to the design or operation of the plant
affecting structures, systems, and components (SSCs) or accident
functions due to long-term use of sodium tetraborate (NaTB).
Similarly, there are no changes to the design or operation of the
plant affecting SSCs or accident functions because of revising the
volume of buffering agent required during Operating Modes 1 and 2.
The changes are necessary due to the lower density of NaTB that will
be obtained from a new vendor and provide for additional pH
[potential of hydrogen] control margin in the post loss-of-coolant
accident (LOCA) sump with minimal impact on electrical equipment
qualification (EEQ) margin.
All SSCs function as designed and the performance requirements
have been evaluated and found to be acceptable. NaTB will maintain
pH >= 7.0 in the recirculation water following a LOCA. This function
is maintained with the proposed change.
Analysis demonstrates that using NaTB as a buffering agent
ensures the post-LOCA containment sump mixture will have a pH >=
7.0. The buffering agent is not an accident initiator; therefore,
the use of NaTB on a permanent basis will not involve a significant
increase in the probability or consequences of an accident
previously evaluated.
2. Does the proposed change create the possibility of a new or
different kind of accident from any accident previously evaluated?
Response: No.
No new accident scenarios, failure mechanisms, or single
failures are introduced because of the proposed changes. All SSCs
previously required for mitigation of an event remain capable of
fulfilling their intended design function. The proposed changes have
no adverse effects on any safety-related system or component and do
not challenge the performance or integrity of any safety related
system. The long-term use of NaTB as a buffering agent has been
evaluated and no new accident scenarios or single failures are
introduced.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not create the possibility of
a new or different kind of accident from any previously evaluated.
3. Does the proposed change involve a significant reduction in a
margin of safety?
Response: No.
Removing the restrictions limiting the use of NaTB to Fuel Cycle
24 to allow long-term operation with NaTB does not affect its
capability to maintain the pH of the containment sump >= 7.0 post-
LOCA. Previous evaluations have shown that NaTB is capable of
maintaining the pH of the containment sump >= 7.0 post-LOCA. A
volume of NaTB that is dependent on hot zero power critical boron
concentration has been evaluated previously with respect to
neutralization of all borated water and acid sources. These
evaluations concluded that there would be no impact on pH control,
and hence no reduction in the margin of safety related to post-LOCA
conditions.
Therefore, the proposed changes do not involve a significant
reduction in a margin of safety.
The NRC staff has reviewed the licensee's analysis and, based on
this review, it appears that the three standards of 10 CFR 50.92(c) are
satisfied. Therefore, the NRC staff proposes to determine that the
amendment request involves no significant hazards consideration.
Attorney for licensee: James R. Curtiss, Esq., Winston & Strawn,
1700 K Street, NW., Washington, DC 20006-3817.
NRC Branch Chief: Thomas G. Hiltz.
Notice of Issuance of Amendments to Facility Operating Licenses
During the period since publication of the last biweekly notice,
the Commission has issued the following amendments. The Commission has
determined for each of these amendments that the application complies
with the standards and requirements of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954,
as amended (the Act), and the Commission's rules and regulations. The
Commission has made appropriate findings as required by the Act and the
Commission's rules and regulations in 10 CFR Chapter I, which are set
forth in the license amendment.
Notice of Consideration of Issuance of Amendment to Facility
Operating License, Proposed No Significant Hazards Consideration
Determination, and Opportunity for A Hearing in connection with these
actions was published in the Federal Register as indicated.
Unless otherwise indicated, the Commission has determined that
these amendments satisfy the criteria for categorical exclusion in
accordance with 10 CFR 51.22. Therefore, pursuant to 10 CFR 51.22(b),
no environmental impact statement or environmental assessment need be
prepared for these amendments. If the Commission has prepared an
environmental assessment under the special circumstances provision in
10 CFR 51.22(b) and has made a determination based on that assessment,
it is so indicated.
For further details with respect to the action see (1) The
applications for amendment, (2) the amendment, and (3) the Commission's
related letter, Safety Evaluation and/or Environmental Assessment as
indicated. All of these items are available for public inspection at
the Commission's Public Document Room (PDR), located at One White Flint
[[Page 57357]]
North, Public File Area 01F21, 11555 Rockville Pike (first floor),
Rockville, Maryland. Publicly available records will be accessible from
the Agencywide Documents Access and Management Systems (ADAMS) Public
Electronic Reading Room on the internet at the NRC Web site, http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/adams.html. If you do not have access to ADAMS
or if there are problems in accessing the documents located in ADAMS,
contact the PDR Reference staff at 1 (800) 397-4209, (301) 415-4737 or
by e-mail to [email protected].
AmerGen Energy Company, LLC, Docket No. 50-289, Three Mile Island
Nuclear Station, Unit 1 (TMI-1), Dauphin County, PA
Date of application for amendment: December 12, 2006, as
supplemented by letters dated May 31 and July 11, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revised Technical
Specification Sections 3.8 and 4.1 to delete references to radiation
monitors RM-G6, RM-G7 and RM-G9. The administrative requirements for
these monitors have been removed from the technical specifications and
placed into licensee controlled documents.
Date of issuance: September 26, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 60 days.
Amendment No.: 260.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-50. Amendment revised the
license and the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 3, 2007 (72 FR
36521). The supplemental letters dated May 31 and July 11, 2007,
provided additional information that clarified the application, did not
expand the scope of the application as originally noticed and did not
change the NRC staff's original proposed no significant hazards
determination. The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is
contained in a Safety Evaluation dated September 26, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dominion Nuclear Connecticut, Inc., Docket No. 50-336 and 50-423,
Millstone Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 New London County, CT
Date of amendment request: September 1, 2006.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the Millstone
Power Station, Unit Nos. 2 and 3 Technical Specifications to replace
the terms ``trash racks and screens'' with the term ``strainers.''
Date of issuance: September 18, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days from the date of issuance.
Amendment Nos.: 300 and 240.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-65 and NPF-49: Amendment
revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: October 24, 2006 (71 FR
62308).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 18, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, PA
Date of application for amendments: September 15, 2006.
Brief description of amendments: These amendments modify the
Technical Specifications Surveillance Requirement 3.1.4.2, ``Control
Rod Scram Times'' frequency from 120 days to 200 days.
Date of issuance: September 14, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, and shall be
implemented within 60 days.
Amendments Nos.: 262 and 266.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: December 19, 2006 (71
FR 75994).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Exelon Generation Company, LLC, and PSEG Nuclear LLC, Docket Nos. 50-
277 and 50-278, Peach Bottom Atomic Power Station, Units 2 and 3, York
and Lancaster Counties, PA
Date of application for amendments: March 6, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments modify the TS
Surveillance Requirement 3.6.1.3.14, ``Primary Containment Isolation
Valves.'' Specifically, the proposed change revises the allowed leakage
from 11.5 standard cubic feet per hour (scfh) per valve to 46 scfh
total leakage through all four valves.
Date of issuance: September 14, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance, to be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendments Nos.: 263 and 267.
Renewed Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-44 and DPR-56: The
amendments revised the License and Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 24, 2007 (72 FR
40342).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 14, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
FPL Energy Duane Arnold, LLC, Docket No. 50-331, Duane Arnold Energy
Center, Linn County, IA
Date of application for amendment: February 27, 2004, as
supplemented by letters dated August 9, 2004, January 7, 2005, May 11,
and August 3, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment modifies license
condition 2.C.(2)(b) to eliminate the requirement to perform a main
generator load reject test. The request within the same application to
modify license condition 2.C.(2)(b) to remove the requirement to
perform a full main steam isolation valve closure test, associated with
extended power uprate, resulted in Amendment No. 257, issued on March
17, 2005, under separate correspondence.
Date of issuance: September 20, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 30 days.
Amendment No.: 266.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-49: The amendment revised the
Operating License.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 13, 2004 (69 FR
19572).
The supplemental letters contained clarifying information, did not
change the initial no significant hazards consideration determination,
and did not expand the scope of the original Federal Register notice.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 20, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, MI
Date of application for amendment: November 3, 2006, as
supplemented on June 27, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approved elimination
of the resistance temperature detector (RTD) bypass piping and
installing fast response thermowell-mounted RTDs in
[[Page 57358]]
the reactor coolant system loop piping. The amendment also revised
Surveillance Requirement 3.3.1.15 of the Technical Specifications,
deleting the requirement to perform surveillance on the reactor coolant
system RTD bypass loop flow rate.
Date of issuance: September 19, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to entry into Mode 2 from the fall 2007 refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 280.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: January 3, 2007 (72 FR
153).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 19, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Indiana Michigan Power Company, Docket No. 50-316, Donald C. Cook
Nuclear Plant, Unit 2, Berrien County, MI
Date of application for amendment: September 15, 2006, as
supplemented on April 20, July 6 and July 25, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment approves a plant
design change that modifies the turbine control system, and changes the
technical specifications, increasing the associated allowable low
control fluid oil pressure from greater than or equal to (>=) 57 pounds
per square inch gauge (psig) to >=750 psig.
Date of issuance: September 21, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
prior to entry into Mode 1 after the unit's Cycle 17 (fall 2007)
refueling outage.
Amendment No.: 281.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-74: Amendment revises the
Technical Specifications. The April 20, July 6, and July 25, 2007,
supplements provided additional information that clarified the
application, did not expand the scope of the application as originally
noticed and did not change the NRC staff's original proposed no
significant hazards consideration determination as published in the
Federal Register on November 21, 2006 (71 FR 67396).
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: November 21, 2006 (71
FR 67396).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 21, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Docket No. 50-133, Humboldt Bay Power
Plant, Unit 3, Humboldt County, CA
Date of application for amendment: April 4, 2007.
Brief description of amendment: The amendment revises the license
to allow the results of near-term surveys, performed on a portion of
the plant site, to be included in the eventual Final Status Survey for
license termination.
Date of issuance: September 11, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
when a cross contamination prevention and monitoring plan is
implemented.
Amendment No.: 40.
Facility Operating License No. DPR-7: This amendment revises the
license.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: July 31, 2007 (72 FR
41787).
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendment is contained
in a Safety Evaluation dated September 11, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Docket Nos. 50-327 and 50-328, Sequoyah
Nuclear Plant, Units 1 and 2, Hamilton County, TN
Date of application for amendments: February 26, 2007, as
supplemented on July 26, 2007.
Brief description of amendments: The amendments revise the
allowable value for Functional Unit 17.A in Technical Specification
Table 2.2-1, ``Reactor Trip System Instrumentation Trip Setpoints,''
from greater than or equal to 43 pounds per square inch gauge (psig) to
39.5 psig.
Date of issuance: September 20, 2007.
Effective date: As of the date of issuance and shall be implemented
within 45 days.
Amendment Nos: 316 and 306.
Facility Operating License Nos. DPR-77 and DPR-79: Amendments
revised the technical specifications.
Date of initial notice in Federal Register: April 24, 2007 (72 FR
20385). The July 26, 2007, supplemental letter provided clarifying
information that was within the scope of the initial notice and did not
change the initial proposed no significant hazards consideration
determination.
The Commission's related evaluation of the amendments is contained
in a safety evaluation dated September 20, 2007.
No significant hazards consideration comments received: No.
Dated at Rockville, Maryland, this 27th day of September 2007.
For the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
Catherine Haney,
Director, Division of Operating Reactor, Licensing Office of Nuclear
Reactor Regulation.
[FR Doc. E7-19553 Filed 10-5-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 7590-01-P